My thoughts is there must be someway to temporarily hang it from both positions, even if that means putting some holes in the walls for anchor screws in both places. Then it should be a small-ish matter to fill in the holes and paint over it later. Just run the wires over the floor for now.

My thoughts is there must be someway to temporarily hang it from both positions, even if that means putting some holes in the walls for anchor screws in both places. Then it should be a small-ish matter to fill in the holes and paint over it later. Just run the wires over the floor for now.

understood completely and already thought of that. my thought is that there are folks who probably have a 6 or 7 channel system and some have the surround backs either as close or as far as the 2 options i mentioned. i was hoping those folks would chime in on how they like what they have. i was also hoping that some of them would be QS8v3 users for the 6 & 7 channels for some real true insight.

this would be real food for thought from folks who actually have it both near and far and there feedback would help be decide without the holes; if possible.

if i got enough folks that have the same speaker and is used for the same channel(s) and can say they liked it better farther away because it created a much deeper sound field for the back channels OR that the speaker could not create the sound field they wanted back there and they moved it closer towards the side surronds that would be a great help in my thinking.

FYI, I have a 7.1 QS8 v2 installation. My back surrounds are ~3-4 feet behind my listening position. I find the surround field fantastic and makes my back wall disappear (or at least sound way further back than it is). I have not listened to the QS8's further back than that.

FYI, I have a 7.1 QS8 v2 installation. My back surrounds are ~3-4 feet behind my listening position. I find the surround field fantastic and makes my back wall disappear (or at least sound way further back than it is). I have not listened to the QS8's further back than that.

SD, when similar questions have arisen in the past, my view has been that the back surrounds(yes, even with QSs two should be better and allow for a "stereo" back effect on some passages)should be at least 4' behind the listening position to give room for a rear sound field to form. Because of the exceptionally wide dispersion of the QSs, even 3-4' back would give a reasonable effect, but twice that distance should be better if available.

As Dan pointed out, you've given distances behind the side surrounds, which may not be the same as distances behind the listening position if the side surrounds are farther back than the listening position. Be that as it may, placing the QS8 about 9' back on the rear wall and about 3' above ear level should give a deeper back surround effect(assuming that the path is unobstructed)than would result from placing it on that 8" partition about 8' up and 3' back.

SD, when similar questions have arisen in the past, my view has been that the back surrounds(yes, even with QSs two should be better and allow for a "stereo" back effect on some passages)should be at least 4' behind the listening position to give room for a rear sound field to form. Because of the exceptionally wide dispersion of the QSs, even 3-4' back would give a reasonable effect, but twice that distance should be better if available.

As Dan pointed out, you've given distances behind the side surrounds, which may not be the same as distances behind the listening position (those are the exact distances from the listening position as the sides are perfectly lined up with the heads of the listener in the main seating area) if the side surrounds are farther back than the listening position. Be that as it may, placing the QS8 about 9' back on the rear wall and about 3' above ear level should give a deeper back surround effect(assuming that the path is unobstructed)than would result from placing it on that 8" partition about 8' up and 3' back.

the side surrounds are exactly positioned at the sides of the main listening area which is exactly 4' away from where option 1 is and approximately 8 - 9' from option 2.

i was a little concerned about the back surround being so far away from the listening position placing it at twice the distance of the front soundstage from the main listening position.

i'd also gathered that calibration should compensate and take care of that distance. of course i wanted to hear from someone who had a setup like i described in options 1 & 2 to hear what they had to say. i could envision how good it might sound if i could place that center back channel that far away and what an incredible effect it would have on the movie experience especially 6 or 7 channel discrete movies as well as matrixed 5 channel events too. (i only matrix DD or DTS lossy, never lossless--that's just me)

so johnk, i'll gather you vote for the farther back position for the center back channel!?! thanks for your insight and recommendation. i think that the further back postioning of the center back channel will have a hugh positive effect on the audio events!

I would vote for the closer position for the Q series and if you wanted to run a direct radiating speaker I would have said the farther position as there would be ample room for sound dispersion. I feel the farther away the Q's are from the listener you loose some impact from them due to their design, 3-4 ft is ideal for a QS and that 9' mark just might be too far, IMO.

Like the others have stated I would try to test it out at the various positions with a ladder and/or someone holding the speaker if necessary.

I have a pair of v2QS8's in a 7.2 system that set almost 8' in back of the primary listening position that I feel do an excellent job of getting the sound to the listening area. I did experiment with a pair of M60v2's as back surrounds but personally felt the QS8's did a better job ... but of course what works for me may not suit other's personal taste.